First of all, leave the 2nd Amendment out of the discussion because it can be interpreted either way, as granting gun ownership only to members of a state's "well-regulated militia" or to the general public. We can argue that till Doomsday and never resolve it.
True, but since it's the only written document allowing us our freedom, it's very relevant.
Do I believe that a gun-free society - IF it could be achieved - would have less people killed as a result of crime? Well, obviously so because guns are far more efficient at killing people than other personal weapons. The nut at Virginia Tech for example would not have been able to kill near that many people without guns. That's the "idealist" part of my view - but notice I said if it could be achieved - which it can't, so on to the "realist".
That nut at Virginia Tech could just as easily have driven a car through the quad, or thrown a couple pipe bombs into class rooms. That's the realist in me. I'd rather get shot to be honest.
Accepting that guns are going to be in society, the next step is to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that people who possess guns are stable, responsible individuals who have been trained to handle a weapon. I support CCW with the same caveat although in reality, at some point there will be tragic accidents. For example, responding officers will someday shoot a good samaritan who has drawn their licensed weapon. It's unavoidable.
I agree about the training whether you carry or not and let's throw basic first aid and cpr in there as well. Responding cops are already shooting and tasing people without warrant and there are very little statistics to back up your statement about "good samaritans" being shot by police at the scenes of crime.
The assault weapon question is a good example of where things get murky. There are many people who can responsibly handle such weapons and could blast the living s*** out of practice targets to their heart's desire for all I care. But many people wonder why John Q. Public needs a weapon designed and intended for military use against enemy combatants (i.e. human targets). And you know what? He doesn't need it, he wants it. So how do you balance that want vs. the potential for those intending harm to obtain such weapons? That's a legitimate question.
Define an assault weapon for me Blue? Is it the semi-auto .22 I own that has a 12 round mag? Or is it the semi-auto bernelli shotgun I own and hunt with? I can do a lot of damage with a semi-auto 12 gauge. It's for hunting though? Let's look at the DC Sniper Case. The guy used an "assault" rifle, but in each case, he only fired one shot! I can do that with my .0306 hunting rifle. Why does and AR-15 have to be banned, because it "looks" more bad ass than my .22 semi-auto? I can get 100 round drums for the .22?
And here's one for you gun enthusiasts - what about items like so-called flechette shotgun rounds that fire darts? One website says they're to "take out snipers hiding in thick brush or trees" and another advertisement says they're designed for "maximum trauma effect". Snipers in the trees, now there's a scenario we can all expect to encounter.
![[Freak]](graemlins/freak.gif)
IMO this is an example where even real gun lovers should draw the line. There's no question such rounds should be illegal. Make a case for them if you can, I'd be interested in contrasting views. (BTW, "contrasting view" does not mean calling those who disagree with you America-hating, Jane Fonda-hugging pinko hippie commie Al-Qaeda Bin Laden-lovers. It means making logical statements explaining why anyone would ever have a legitimate use for such ammunition.)
Many forms of ammo are already banned. You can't own armor piercing ammo for instance. Flechette ammo was tried by various militarys etc. and found to be extremely in-efficient and nobody uses them. They are snake oil, and that is way they are probably legal to purchase. I'll take full metal jacketed, hollow points, and wad-cutters myself. Once again though, you let politicians start legislating it, and they will slowly erode your rights.
As a whole, it's a complex issue, but depending on the agenda they subscribe to, people see it in black-and-white, absolute terms. That's the big challenge. What's needed is reasonable discussion and reasonable compromise.
It's very easy. Don't ban firearms, you must have a special licence to own fully automatic or burst weapons, as they are the true assault weapons and you must go through training to own, operate, or CCW. Most states already have those laws though.
Previous Topic
Index
